Liquid water exists on Mars, boosting hopes for life there, NASA says

[dust1n]

You keep changing the subject. One post it is a permanent manned mission to Mars. Then it is "planning, creating, and dreaming".

Let's take a vote. There are 7 billion human beings. Let them all choose between:
1) Spend a trillion dollars on a Mars mission
2) Spend a trillion dollars on safe drinking water for everyone.

Let's see what the entire human family decides.
Tom

I think the likely vote will be 3) Spending a trillion bombing a foreign nation for no particular clear aim or reason.

EDIT: But given the state of pollution on the Earth, it may be necessary to spend on 1 to accomplish objective 2.

 

[columbus]

I think the likely vote will be 3) Spending a trillion bombing a foreign nation for no particular clear aim or reason.

Unfortunately, that is as likely as a Clinton/Bush presidential campaign.
Tom

 

[Father Heathen]

With the advancement of robotics, I've a feeling that when humanity eventually does first step on another planet, it will be rather anticlimactic with a completely constructed and fully operational station already awaiting our arrival, complete with Starbucks in the food court.

 

[Kirran]

We don't need that, Mars actually comes with gravity built in to its source code.

Including a gravity well to be navigated and the most inefficient use of mass to produce surface area which is possible.

This is not to say it won't be settled, I believe it will. And I totally support that. But ultimately, I think our habitat will be constructed space habitats.

 

[Laika]

With the advancement of robotics, I've a feeling that when humanity eventually does first step on another planet, it will be rather anticlimactic with a completely constructed and fully operational station already awaiting our arrival, complete with Starbucks in the food court.

I think McDonald's beat Starbucks to it on the Moon.

 

[Quetzal]

I think McDonald's beat Starbucks to it on the Moon.

Yeah I will have a number 2 with a large Mr. Pibb... and.. uhm... one apple pie.... yeah I guess that's it.

 

[Demonslayer]

Yeah I will have a number 2 with a large Mr. Pibb... and.. uhm... one apple pie.... yeah I guess that's it.

I'd have substituted the apple pie with...wait for it...a moon pie.

 

[Revoltingest]

A planet is far more stable as an environment for a population. However there is distance to consider, the problem here, regardless of planetary viability. Until something was done on mars ie greenhouses etc, it's not a place for large habitation by any means. As far as mining, that's a cost to effectiveness situation. Basically I disagree with your assessment; the space station populations have to have bases /planets, because they are still in an unstable environment.

Planets are great if we don't need to often loft people or material from the surface to elsewhere.
Space stations are better for that, but will be more difficult to protect from radiation & micrometeorites.
Our specific goals will drive which path we take.
But for the moment, bases on moons or planets just don't make sense.

 

[Quetzal]

Yeah I will have a number 2 with a large Mr. Pibb... and.. uhm... one apple pie.... yeah I guess that's it.

I'd have substituted the apple pie with...wait for it...a moon pie.

 

[Quetzal]

Planets are great if we don't need to often loft people or material from the surface to elsewhere.
Space stations are better for that, but will be more difficult to protect from radiation & micrometeorites.
Our specific goals will drive which path we take.
But for the moment, bases on moons or planets just don't make sense.

I would agree... but soon(tm).

 

[Demonslayer]

But for the moment, bases on moons or planets just don't make sense.

Sense? Maybe not. Awesome? Totally.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not sure what the cost to effectiveness would be, unless the intermittent mining and such were freakishly profitable. I do believe that regardless, we're going to have to have systems like that, but I believe they are ''minimum'', because, if you can get a planetary surface habitable, it far exceeds practicality of space dwelling upkeep. But, this is hypothetical, so, in the sense of, ''right now'', yes you would be correct.

Current estimates are about $10,000 to put a pound of material in space from Earth.
Even on a planet with a lower gravity, it might cost much more than even that because of much higher fuel manufacturing costs.
A big issue: What material is worth that much + the capital costs of such a facility & infrastructure?

 

[Revoltingest]

But for the moment, bases on moons or planets just don't make sense.
Sense? Maybe not. Awesome? Totally.

No argument there!

 

[jonathan180iq]

Interesting theory, but aren't the orbits of asteroids too variable to support life?

They also have no atmosphere, their gravity is miniscule, and heat shifts between daytime and nighttime range in the hundreds of degrees in either direction.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I'm not really sure why we're talking about extra-terrestrial bases when we haven't even set foot on the planet yet...

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree, it would be about other goals. I don't think mining asteroids is necessarily that much more practical, though.

I don't think it's practical either, but asteroids do have the advantage of negligible gravity, which cuts the transportation costs.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not really sure why we're talking about extra-terrestrial bases when we haven't even set foot on the planet yet...

It's the Star Trek Syndrome.....
If popular fiction makes space travel look easy, then people will think it is.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Goldilocks zone ...

Christopher P. McKay, an astrobiologist at NASA’s Ames Research Center in Mountain View, Calif., does not think the recurring slope lineae are a promising place to look. For the water to be liquid, it must be so salty that nothing could live there, he said. “The short answer for habitability is it means nothing,” he said.

He pointed to Don Juan Pond in Antarctica, which remains liquid year round in subzero temperatures because of high concentrations of calcium chloride salt. “You fly over it, and it looks like a beautiful swimming pool,” Dr. McKay said. “But the water has got nothing.”

Others are not so certain. David E. Stillman, a scientist at the Southwest Research Institute’s space studies department in Boulder, Colo., said water for the streaks might be different in different regions. In some, they form only during the warmest times, suggesting that those waters might not be too salty for microbes.

“If it was too salty, they would be flowing year round,” Dr. Stillman said. “We might be in that Goldilocks zone.” source

And we might not.

 

[jonathan180iq]

It's the Star Trek Syndrome.....
If popular fiction makes space travel look easy, then people will think it is.

Yes - absolutely - like referencing altering the trajectories of asteroids to make their orbits more suitable to our use...

Daydreaming is fun and all, but let's keep it at least mildly realistic.

 

[Demonslayer]

Daydreaming is fun and all, but let's keep it at least mildly realistic.

Where's the fun in that? I want my light saber!